Right, hypothetical situation, say you are walking minding your own business then you see a burning car wreck, and the people inside are ostensibly meat eaters- won't you, by saving the people inside, in return have caused the deaths of the hundreds/thousands of cows/chickens/fish that they would consume throughout their remaining lifetime? Or lets take this a step further and exaggerate the situation even more, say the people inside are serial killers/nazis/israili war criminals/ jihad extreemists/child molesters/etc - should one follow the general "value all life" rule or should one indeed look at the laws of causality and how rescuing them might bring some good karma to you in the short term but in the long term by rescuing them you might indeed recieve some very bad karma?

I guess, but how would you know what atrocities they might or might not commit. And then how would you look if you let some people burn to death in a car wreck. Think (if you're capable of such) about that.

This is only borderline fundie. Most of us consider a question like this at some point in our lives, but manage to separate responsibility for our own actions, the actions of others and the need to be compassionate to suffering to realise you always help someone who is suffering.

Is this person asking a genuine question with the need to learn, being a fundie expecting their religion to provide easy answers or trying to trip up vegetarians with silly hypothetical situations that they think they will struggle to answer? Hmmm, not sure.

Edit: looking at later posts on this thread, someone tells him he is not responsible for the decisions of others and he accepts that this is a good thing. I think he was just trying to learn having recently become vegetarian.

How about treating them like human beings instead of being a selfish prat, and if they do prove to be some sort of horrible, irredeemable person, then leave them in the hands of justice instead of taking matters into your own like some sort of vigilante, holier-than-thou crusader fuckwit?

Buddhism represents a middle road of never going to extremes. Buddha said not to gorge yourself, but also not to starve. Kind of ironic given that he died essentially from stuffing his face with pork, but still. The important message is to live a life of moderation, which I rather get on with. If I had to say I were inclined to any belief system (not religion though, they just get in the way), it would be Buddhism.

Jainists, however, do go to extremes. Jain sold all his clothes, walked around bollock naked. Tried not to harm any living creature, and that philosophy is carried on today such that his followers wear masks so that they don't inhale insects. I think that's so... false, so proudly humble, that it freaks me out a bit.

A friend of mine and I were discussing almost the very same hypothetical situation the other day - a baby about to be eaten by a tiger. We decided that a Jainist might just stand by and watch, being prohibited from doing harm to either creature, whereas any normal, sane human being would shoot the tiger to save the child. Buddhists included.

1) The poster is asking questions, not espousing views; asking questions is the beginning of wisdom.

2) They said "hypothetical situation" so that we could accept its implausibility. That's what everyone does when they need to discuss hypotheticals.

3) (@1029377:) Godwin applies to posts that call their opponents Nazis, not just anyone who uses the word "Nazi."

4) Based on what Woody says, the poster sounds reasonably intelligent overall.

Come on, people. Fundie is when someone keeps believing in something after they've been shown its disproof. Fundie is a tangled mess of logical fallacies and poor grammar. Fundie is an inability to grasp opposing views (or even the fact that there ARE opposing views). This is not fundie.

Actually, unless they were in imminent danger of death from the fire (the flames or the smoke), I'd go call 911. Several first aid instructors of mine have pointed out that many Good Samaritans do a lot of damage to people with neck/spine injuries by moving them out of car wrecks, because they think a car on fire will explode like in the movies (which cars nowadays are designed not to do)

Remember kids, knowing is half the battle (the other half is using your knowledge to get out of inane moral questions posed by idiots)

You are ultimately only in control of your own behavior. You can try to influence others but as long as you do the right thing as far as you can determine it, you really can't hold yourself responsible for what other people do or you'll cripple yourself trying to determine increasingly complex causal chains.

Sorry for the serious answer, but I was just surprised to hear a weird vegetarianism related hypothetical I hadn't heard a million times. Seriously, I think that was the first one since "what if a monkey made you a sandwich."

If, hypothetically, you KNEW that you were causing more harm than good, don't do it. On the other hand, imprisonment might be better than letting them die. That's not about meat eaters, that's about anyone you think is causing harm.

If the car wreck had omnivorous beings inside, as an observance of their dentition would reveal, then yes, I would see they were humans and rescue them, being a humanist myself. I would not be as compelled to rescue them if they were either carnivores like zombies or vegetarians like sheep.

If the car wreck had people inside who were serial killers/nazis/israili war criminals/ jihad extreemists/child molesters/etc (sic) then yes, I would rescue them because, as an atheist, I don't discriminate against religionists.

Karma? yuriythebest needs to karm down and stop his crazy fantasizing about hypothetical and exaggerated dream scenarios.